Actually, I would bet my paycheck that he and I don't lean strongly in different directions. What you quoted him saying, is what he "Had" to say. He knows that he can't tell officers to NEVER discuss such topics in private or informally. That has NEVER been the military's position. The rules are written vague enough to sound decisive, but the position is, and has always been, "Don't let anything you say, bring discredit upon the military or the United States of America". In simple terms: Know when to shut the ph....k up. But that can't be written that way. I doubt very much that Mullen and I disagree. And if I was sitting with him right now, with a beer, and not in front of a reporter, he would smile and say: "You know exactly what it means". Which, "WE DO". You're the one so wrapped up in the "Letter of the Law" that you don't understand the "Spirit of the Law".
Did you expect Mullen to respond differently? I can see the answer now:
"Yes, General McChrystal was wrong because he allowed a reporter hear him express his displeasure with the president's administration. He should have realized that what he said there might be reported, and he should refrained from making such comments until he was in a proper setting".
Yea, I can see that happening. So tell me; did you expect Mullen to say something differently than what he did? Now, jump back to reality for a second. Because Mullen said that officers shouldn't say derogatory comments, even in private and informal settings, do you think he's going to install cameras and microphones in the O-club or base housing. Just to make sure no one makes comments IN PRIVATE or in INFORMAL SETTINGS??? So why make a statement that you know perfectly well can not, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, be enforced; let alone should it? Why???? Because it was the "Politically Correct" thing to say.
No, General Mullen and I do not see things differently. I'll bet my paycheck on it. I'm just free to say "WHAT REALLY IS" and Mullen has to say things "POLITICIANS WANT TO HEAR".
The Laws of the Navy
.....................................................
Take heed what you say of your seniors,
Be your words spoken softly or plain,
Let a bird of the air tell the matter,
And so shall ye hear it again.
.................................................
................................................
So it is with the words of the rulers,
And the orders these words shall convey;
Every law is naught beside this one:
Thou shalt not criticise, but Obey.
Oh, and as an aside, this applies in the civilian world, too.
You wanna bad-mouth your boss? Fine. Do it wisely or pay the freight.
This thread is getting so absurd
Discretion- that is the word I was looking for earlier.....it must be that VMI education
Bottom line- We have a job to do. I will not let anything, especially something as petty as a political conversation, get in the way of us performing that job. I do not care what their opinion or beliefs are. They can discuss them with their wives, family or close friends all they want. But leave it there. DO NOT BRING IT to work.
Some may think this is nothing more than a case of CYA. It is not. It is about maintaining unity in the face of stupidity. If you’re stupid enough to ruin my department’s unity, then I do not want you.
About to the day forty six years ago, Midshipman Mullen memorized the follwoing. He has been living it ever since. I seriously doubt if his statement about the McChrystal incident was simply Politically Correctness.
.................................................
This thread is getting so absurd that I vote to lock it.
Christcorp said:Actually, I don't think it's absurd where this thread has gone.
Do you realize what you are saying here? It's proper but we have to hide it? The 'right' thing to do is something we have to cover up? Trying to explain that would have surely placed the Admiral in an impossible situation. In my entire life I have never been in a situation where hiding the right thing was the proper thing to do. Seaman Jones, if he accidentially overhears, is really going to be confused.Christcorp said:"Yes, General McChrystal was wrong because he allowed a reporter hear him express his displeasure with the president's administration. He should have realized that what he said there might be reported, and he should refrained from making such comments until he was in a proper setting".
Again, if it is the proper thing to do, why be discreet. Situational ethics? What is proper in one setting is improper in another? I don't think so. Again, it would be a first.Christcorp said:Fortunately, the overwhelming percentage of military members, officer and enlisted, do know how to discretely carry on such conversations. They know when to keep their mouths shut.
Christcorp, in your career as an enlisted person, you may not have realizeded that an officer responded to a higher calling. There is a 'code' of proper behavior. The fear of being caught does not play into proper behavior and actions but doing it because it is the right thing to do, it is what is expected.Christcorp said:And that is all that matters in this discussion. To say that individuals shouldn't discuss ever, at all, never, etc... is unrealistic and naive. That doesn't mean that we don't follow orders. of course we do. But we follow orders because we CHOOSE TO. Not because we are forced to. And as long as we are able to think, we are going to express those thoughts from time to time. You can not, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, stop such behavior.
First off, this is the setting under which General McChrystal was observed. Another, again a situation which you as an enlisted may not have been familiar with, is the "mandatory" social life of an officer. With this in mind, define 'work'. I would say that it is anytime one looks across the room or table and say the only reason I am in the same place as that particular individual is becasue I am forced to be, is work. Basically 24/7 with anyone in one's organization.Christcorp said:Not one person here has advocated these types of conversations "AT WORK", so I don't know why some here keep bringing that up as an example.
Christcorp, in your career as an enlisted person, you may not have realizeded that an officer responded to a higher calling. There is a 'code' of proper behavior
The fear of being caught does not play into proper behavior and actions but doing it because it is the right thing to do, it is what is expected.
Did you expect Mullen to respond differently? I can see the answer now:
"Yes, General McChrystal was wrong because he allowed a reporter hear him express his displeasure with the president's administration. He should have realized that what he said there might be reported, and he should refrained from making such comments until he was in a proper setting".
I think it is unrealistic to believe that officers don't discuss their displeasures with the military or the hierarchy. I can't tell you how many times I have heard people beeaach about their commanders in private. We tend to forget that the longer you stay in the military, the more you form lifelong friendships. In the AF, the communities are small.
Actually I do read your posts. Several times usually because the first few times makes no sense and subsequent readings most often offer little more, if any, insight. Also, not sure how I could be accused of misquoting when I simply cut and paste.Mongo, do you even READ what people write, or do you simply skim and PRETEND you know what they've said. I haven't said anything on some of your past comments, but I will no longer debate you until you at least quote me accurately when you disagree..
I am saying that more is expected of an officer.Pima said:Are you saying that enlisted personnel are not answering a higher call?
I am saying that more is expected of an officer.
Now you are saying, he has no knowledge of what is going on in Mullen's brain, but you do! Can you give personal proof that you know what Mullen was thinking? Aren't you doing the exact same thing by hypothesizing he would never think what CC has posted?
Did you expect Mullen to respond differently? I can see the answer now: